Month: October 2009

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Because a portion of females use sex as a commodity. A commodity is less valuable when given away. That is why they despise girls who “give it away” since males don’t need to go to them for attention, males can go to these easy females for attention.

That is correct. Now we’re getting somewhere. Females despise girls that are giving it away.

So as I said, the problem is competition. People do not like competitors giving more attractive offers

I look at it a different angle. Not as much as other females giving it away more cheaply but giving something better. Ugly women hate prettier girls.

But our idea is essentially the same. The issue is competition.

Now, if a girl choose to “give it away”, it’s her right right? It’s her body. Maybe she get something out of it. Maybe not. But it’s her right. So why would some other females oppose that? Simple. They don’t want to compete with girls that are more capable and/or willing to give more attractive offers to males. We’re on the same page on that one.

Quote

Quote

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

That is not a descriptor of good or bad. That is a descriptor of what benefits a person in their situation. Good or bad are always universals, good or bad are not relative. You’re confusing wants with good and bad. Yes poor people will vote to take money and property from rich people since it advantages them to do so. But that does not mean its good, it just means it benefits them at that moment. Another example is theft. Rich people don’t mug people for wallets, poor people do. That does not make theft good for poor people because theft benefits poor people more than it benefits rich people.

Ups. Language barrier. I forget that objectivitivist think that good or bad is objective. I used to think that way before. Let’s use less controversial language, like interests and benefits then.

As you said, “it benefits them at that moment”. So poorer people will want higher income tax, for the same reason ugly women would want criminalization of porn. “At that moment it benefits them”. No amount of proof, or reasoning, no matter how true it is, will make them vote differently.

Even if you can give them math and more math and statistic saying that you’re right, they’re just going to close their eyes, scream “does not” and quote religions, fairy tales, or whatever other nonsense to maintain their believe, that bigger government is good for everyone.

Quote

Quote

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. It’s because their kind will die if you own gun.

Errr… I won’t touch the rape comment with a 10 foot pole. There exists no condition in which rape is good for someone. As for gun control, liberals tend to want gun control due to their Hobbsean view of humanity. They usually think people are essentially evil and left unto themselves will destroy each other. Therefore only a state with guns can exist since the populace cannot be trusted to defend themselves. Also, if one governs themselves and has the power (gun) to back that up, they cannot easily be centrally controlled by the state. I doubt liberals are worried about being shot per say. More they are worried they cannot exert power through the state on others if others are armed.

Rape is of course good, ups I mean, benefit the rapist. If it doesn’t, no males would rape.

ANYTHING people do they do it because they believe that it “benefits them at that moment”. And their beliefs maybe way more correct than what you think. This is the essence of our difference. I think seeing that stealing is “good” for the thief can lead to many correct prediction, like that some people, if not most, would steal in absence of laws.

Here are some quotes to help us see reality

“The arrangement you describe would definitely be disadvantageous to men (even though us dumb guys would probably think it sounded like a great deal). The problem is, for every guy with two ladies, there’d be a guy with none. If you want a stable society, you don’t want too many unhappy guys with no partners.” – Michael Snyder http://cocksofthealphamales.com/

David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.

This same result of polygamy is used to justify it as a way to improve the genetic characteristics in a population. The logic being that women will generally tend to marry men of wealth and health. Wealth has a high corrolation with intelligence, thus polygamy has the effect of increasing the intelligence inside the population that practices it.

In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.

Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.

[quote author=CB750 link=topic=6050.msg30328#msg30328 date=1255532407]
[quote]My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.[/quote]

Ok so then why would people oppose homosexuality? What does a heterosexual lose if a tiny portion of people are gay? I doubt its the loss of potential mating partners. What would be the competition here? I might also oppose bestiality even though I’m not worried about the love of my dog being lost to another. BTW I’m not comparing homosexuality and bestiality.
[/quote]

What I mean by the reason, is the real reason. Deep inside, hardcoded by genes. Not rational reason the actors are aware and definitely not discussed reason. People want to prohibit porn because they feel they need to do so. They feel that way because their genes hard wire them to feel that way. That’s an essence of selfish gene theory by the way. The genes, rather than individuals, are selfish.

As why people hate gay, I do not quite understand too my self. To me for every gay people there is one less competitor. Rather than opposing homosexuality, we should encourage it the way we should encourage abortion.

But there is a pattern. If one men get many the rest don’t get any. If it were like that (it’s not, but say it were), then it’s zero sum game. It’s like penalty kick. There will be no peace or honesty. The more we kick to the right the more we pretend that we kick to the left.

Turns out it’s not zero sum game. Women, or at least the joy of their beauty, can be “mass produced” via porn or more efficiently used via “prostitution”. Some males are homosexual so they don’t mind some males get plenty. Poorer males, would rather have more money rather than making more kids. And many people don’t put high dollar value in their gene pool survival that they want to abort their babies. All those are peaceful solution we should encourage. Guess what, why is it all those “peaceful” solution is politically incorrect?

Why every social norms against consensual sex tend to promote gene pool survival of the weakest, ugliest, and least competitive? Because norms are made by those with power, guts, and insanity to screw others and that kind of people are usually those who have little productivity to offer.

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Then I figured that out. Western men are rich. Women prefer the rich. Hence western men are competitive. Men, I hang around okay. I asked a native javanese girl to meet and she said that she only want to mate with white men. I did try to convince her that white men don’t necessarily have bigger cock, typically have lower IQ (I think I am wrong here), I were rich too, and Asian countries are getting prosper. Let’s just say it didn’t work ;D. Well, she’s not as pretty as my girl friend and I didn’t think it’s worth to pursue. But I do learn something.

Needless to say, in poor countries like mine, it’s the male that opposes free sex. Religious bigots that go from places to places wanting to guard morality are usually males, poor males. In poorer countries like Afghanistan, women can’t even work. The richer the country, the more liberal the men are. This you can verify.

Of course, being weaker, women don’t usually speak clearly on what they want. If women do speak, they usually just confirm whatever prevailing norm in that society so she can fit in. So everyone pretty much undermine women’s consent under the pretext of protecting women because ALL women want it anyway.

It seems to me what matter is not whether something benefits males or females but where you are in the gene pool relative to others. Those relatively competitive sexually will be liberal. Those who are competitive financially will be conservative. And those who are competitive at both will be libertarian. Those who are not competitive will be want bigger government. Like this: http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/RealityofHumanNature.gif

I mean it’s like arguments about socialized health care or income tax. People argue whether it’s good or bad, efficient, or not. That’s because they want as many votes as possible to their side. But let’s just face it. It’s not a cooperative game. If you’re healthy and rich you want privatization. If you’re poor and sick, you want socialization. The zero sum aspect is more influential than the cooperative one and understanding that will more accurately predict what people will vote.

Here is another way to see this.

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

Another easier way to see this:

Rape is like income tax. They’re both a form of slavery, which is a form of robbery. Damage done is then proportional to how valuable things that are being robbed. Which one fear income tax more? The high income or the low income? Which one fear jail more? Programmers, brick layers, doctors, ceos, billionaires, or some starving hoodlum that’ll do anything for free food? I think this will correctly predict people’s voting behavior.

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Just like a person will lay his life for 2 siblings, 4 cousins, or 8 nephews, the same way people would lie his life to exterminate those too antagonistic for their gene pool survival. Suicide bombers typically oppose free sex. At least, they’ll vote against it.

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing at least for males that carry her genes. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. Their friends and families are burglars and will die if you own gun.

Imagine a world without capitalism, which is what the most of the world is before Adam Smith. Those are millions of years are when our genes are fine tuned through evolution. Those whose preference do not lead to gene pool survival, like celibacy, has been wiped out by mother nature through evolution. In those world, we live in a zero sum game.

What would you do in zero sum game? You gang with evil you know against evil you don’t. Our world is NOT zero sum game. But may not be as different as you may think.

Here is another way to think about.

1 out of 4 Asian males carry the same Y chromosome mutation with Gengish Khan. So what kind of humans are around nowadays? Just look at the kind of humans successfully reproduce in the past. Cruel, cunning, insane, greedy, promiscuous, vengeful, and mean. Now, another good question. What kind of human you want to be? The one that stays in the gene pool or the kind that will get driven out?

My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.

Maybe it’s true that ugly women also fear rape. Fine. That still doesn’t justify opposition to porn and other consensual sex. If someone rape, punish the rapist. Simple. Why they hell they have to oppose consensual acts like porn and prostitution that actually reduce rape rather than increasing it.

The fact is most women that oppose porn are ugly. It’s as if they are soooooooooo afraid of rape that they want to prohibit porn because it may cause rape. This while the pretty often become porn star. Something is missing. I am saying that’s not true. The real issue is not because the ugly are more afraid of rape. The issue is because they got hidden motives.

The same goes for anti polygamy laws. It’s there to protect poor males. Of course there are males that have so many wives he cannot afford kids. Solution: Punish males that don’t support kids and set child support payment to be constant irrelevant of daddy’s wealth. But nooo… Can’t feed them, don’t breed them. That’s not the solution people pick don’t they?

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.
How would you happen to know what any one woman, much less ALL ugly (subjective in itself) women fears?
The answer is, you don’t. You are not psychic, so you don’t know what a single other person fears, whether they are ugly or not.

EASY. This is the essence of evolutionary biology. In free market, what a person want is simple. What he chooses.

It’s not simple in non consensual act like rape. It’s also not simple when there are too many rules against consensual acts. So we need a third leg in the equation best interest=what he wants. The third equation is that both, in general, are most likely equal with gene pool survival.

According to evolution theory, people fear something if it reduces their gene pool survival. How do rape reduces women’s gene pool survival? It undermines women’s “choice” to mate with higher quality genes and her bargaining position to get resources in exchange of her sexual favor.

Say 2 women are equally pretty. One of them choose a mate and got a millionaire. The other get raped and mate with a hoodlum. That decrease her market value. So she ended up marrying someone poorer. See how rape sucks?

So the true cost is the lost of opportunity for the woman to mate with higher quality males or getting paid for the sexual service. It’s like software pirating. If people can pirate software why should they pay for it? So women also lost potential earning she could have gotten through the sexual service.

Let alone disease, etc.

Dignity is also an issue. If people hurt you and get away with it, it tells others that it’s okay to hit you. This is how the Jews got exterminated. They didn’t hit back hard enough that people start thinking that it’s okay to screw Jews. Eventually it leads to genocide. The same way unpunished rape means males can “use” the women without begging, buying chocolate, paying, caresing, bla bla bla, so why the hell should any male do all those to get her?

The prettier the woman the higher the cost, quite obviously. Pretty woman then lose more to rape than an ugly one. So I conclude that relative to prettier women, uglier women fear rape less.

Keep in mind that’s not really the point. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t punish rape against ugly women. I am arguing that all consensual sex, like porn, prostitution, and consensual women trafficking should all be legal.

Can we quantify damage? Well, to quantify damage we need market price. To know the market price, we need the market. Prostitution is illegal, so no market. But once it’s legal, you’ll see I am right.

Here is a simpler way to see it. Pretty women’s choice matter more. Males are willing to pay more to have prettier women choose him. In general. Rape take away women’s choice. So rape hurt the pretty more than the ugly.

Ok, I’m willing to cut you a bit of slack on the “women trafficking” and the “Germans hate Jews” remark, as being difficulties with an unfamiliar language. For future reference, when used as a verb (as you did), “traffic” refers to commercial dealings. In other words, buying and selling. Trafficking in human beings is, by libertarian standards, about as wrong as you can get. A better choice of words would be “open borders” or “free immigration.” If you’re referring to the people who arrange cross-border matches, “marriage broker” would be a better term. (Though I should warn you that marriage brokers have acquired their own bad reputation.)

I see your concern. I think choices of words are quite difficult here.

About open border and free immigration as a word, it’s tricky. Women cannot just immigrate to richer countries for being sex worker and while I think they should be allowed to, I am not aiming to promote open border for now. It will happen. Don’t worry. With globalization, job move overseas and soon salary differences will get reduced, reducing political will to prevent immigration. However, I must reluctantly admit that voters in rich countries did something right in making their country rich. Simply forcing voters in those countries to unconditionally accept immigration would undermine intensive for people in poor countries to vote for free market too. So I think a moderate slower approach to get that done through globalization is better than campaigning against truly open border.

About “marriage broker”, well, I don’t promote marriage. To me, marriage implies governments approval while I believe that all consensual sex should be equally approved.

The majority of women “trafficking traveling for mate to richer countries” is of course, consensual. I know that through reasoning. When market value difference is too high, it doesn’t make sense to force people. Much easier to trade consensually. You can see the report on the web easily. Yes traffic refers to commercial dealings. All sex is a commercial dealing. Commercial usually means consensual. Saying consensual women trafficking is like saying I just buy a bread consensually. Of course I buy the bread consensually. That’s what I want to promote. Consensual commercialized everything including sex.

I think I am the one that should be more of understanding rather than talking in my own lingo. Yea, trafficking has commercial connotation. I like to think that everything is a commercial trade. Maybe because I am a businessman.

Quote

Regarding Nazi Germany and the Jews, yes, during that period, Jews were vilified, singled out for persecution, and eventually slaughtered in large numbers. On the other hand, this indicates that before the rise of the Nazis, Germany had a large Jewish population…unlike some other countries which actively opposed their immigration. This suggests that pre-Nazi Germany was quite a bit more cosmopolitan and civilized than you might suppose.

I have nothing against German. EVERY people that I know of hate some more financially successful minority groups. I used German as a sample but really, seen from here, I think many people that oppose individual freedom is about as evil as Nazi. In a sense that if they have the same power with Nazi, they would have done the same or even worst, as we can see Lenin, Mao, and young Turks did.

Also, during 1930, German lose a lot of money in war. Also they couldn’t regain their wealth through trade because of protectionism practiced by the other countries. Here they were a country in the middle of assholes that make money through war rather than through productivity, what would you do? The true evil is those opposing globalization. With globalization, intensive to wage war will be much less.

To me, saying that porn, prostitution, cohabitation, foreign bride, should be prosecuted make as much sense (or non sense) as saying that Jews should be prosecuted. The statements are based on prejudices rather than proper understanding. Also bigots would embrace the belief anyway for the same reason that will take too long to explain.

Now, I am going to speak “YOUR language” as I have observed.

Ever heard the idea that men can never understand women? There are many jokes about it, like how books about “understanding women” is empty, etc. I think it’s a running gags.

The truth is men can understand EVERY OBJECT, including, if not especially, women namely through reason.

The problem is proper understanding of humans’ sexual selection can lead to really really politically incorrect conclusion. If we understand that men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich, for example, it would justify legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and consensual (I can’t say trafficking, so ugh, traveling across country borders to find mate with help of people smugglers). All those are politically incorrect because it would drive many uncompetitive voters (poorer males, uglier females) out of the gene pool.

So males then pretend that they do not understand women so they can “protect” women against women’s own consent under the pretext that no women could possibly want that anyway. The truth is, the number of women that want to do consensual crimes, if it were legal, is TOO MANY, and that’s why it’s prohibited.

So, societies fed us with the wrong model to understand sex. Sex is then reduced to confusing “romance” that doesn’t make sense. If people want to be romantic, that’s fine. But we have strong imbalanced information. Cinderella’s stories are taught to children, perhaps as mandatory reading. Yet more straight forward porn where women are paid to get nekkid is declared “dangerous for minor” or even everyone.

Even on sanitized literature there are glimpse on humans’ sexual selection for those curious enough. Why do the pretty Cinderella and the rich prince happen to like each other anyway is not usually explained (hint: because the prince prefer the pretty and Cinderella prefer the rich). I once being reported to cops for being arrogant by an ex boy friend that bitch about how he truly loved the girl I walked with. Part of me was angry. He loved her, whatever that means, so what? But part of me see the confusion. Somehow many males think that women prefer males that love her, rather than a richer smarter males that do not even want to marry her. Many males of course have a really hard time to understand women as long as they use incorrect model.

So what’s the correct model? Simple. Go back to science. Evolutionary biology, game theory, and many other things tell us how to predict sexual selection on many creatures including human. Don’t trust me. Read “red queen”, “seflish gene”, “evolution of desire.” It’ll be too long to explain but here is what I think is the “basic” principle.

1. Peahen like peacock with longest tail. The peahen do not get any resources by mating with peacock with longest tail. However, those peahen would produce “sexier” sons and daughter with the same hardwired preference to longer tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
2. Humans do not grow elaborate tails. Human males, grow elaborate, guess what? Elaborate wealth. Just like I like pretty women even though I won’t get prettier by mating with them, women prefer the rich even if the rich pay her the same amount of money. In addition, richer males, are often willing to pay MORE, rather than LESS, money for pretty women.

Am I being too technical?

Quote

Regarding forum spamming and playing by “the other side’s” rules, I stand by my statements.

It doesn’t matter how true evolution theory and game theory is though on humans’ sexual selection. As I said, it’s politically incorrect. People would fight toes and nails, with religions.vague reasoning and censorship to prevent the idea from spreading. Beliefs tend to be self fulfilling when governments get involved. So, you still think we should leave black hat method out of the table despite what the other side will do? I’ll think about it. I am going white hat my self in my biz. Google search engine is too tough to trick nowadays. Maybe you’re right. But just to let you know what we’re up against.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.